On Wednesday, President Obama sent a formal request to Congress seeking the authority to wage a ground offensive against the Islamic State in Iraq, something the defense department (DoD) previously said was not on the table. This is the third time since the dawn of the 21st century that a president has sought congressional approval for the use of force in the Middle East and the first since President George W.

President Obama is widely expected to veto the Keystone XL legislation that has passed both houses of Congress this past week in its reconciled form.

It is also anticipated that the vote to override the veto will not reach the two-thirds majority needed--setting off the controversy over the checks and balances of the government.

Is modern politics really that different from the days of the Founders?

At times like this, we can look to the Founding Fathers--and see how our first five presidents employed this constitutional privileged of the executive branch.

When we think of judicial activism or so-called "legislating from the bench," we typically think of this being a modern phenomenon complete with the modern rhetoric of judges going against the will of the people to create or strike-down laws.

Throughout the 20th century, many powerful court cases decided social issues at a national level, including segregation, abortion, and most recently gay marriage.

Numerous politicians, from both the left and right, periodically call for the end of judicial activism; especially, after being on the losing side of a case.

In the last article in this series, I covered the strong-government/pro-business tradition of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. In this article, we shall see how the utopianism of later Progressivism subverted the fundamental conservatism of the original Hamiltonian political philosophy.

It is curious, really, how little notice was taken of the almost radical nature of quantitative easing (QE). This was something new under the Sun. Actually, as implemented in the U.S., it represented a revolutionary approach to supplying the money the economy must have.

Before QE, there were two ways money entered the U.S. economy. When it was legal to require payment in gold or silver (outlawed in 1933), it was possible to increase the amount of money in the economy by mining gold or silver or using gold or silver on hand for payment.

When it comes to technology and data, the Democratic Party is far ahead of the game. Just think back to the 2008 presidential election, when Obama’s digital team, comprised of some of the brightest minds in technology, took the nation by storm.

So why does 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush think he stands a chance competing with the data-driven giants of the Democratic Party?